AnnaEsse wrote:If Madeleine was abducted and Kate McCann truly believes that her child is in the hands of a paedophile, then her responses could be classified as those of someone with Asperger's.

It couldn't. The idea that people with Asperger's don't show emotions or don't understand emotions or even appear cold is a complete and utter myth.

Any incongruence in display of emotion with her was due to the lying, deception and manipulation of the truth. The woman lost her child (when the child was sick no less), they then found the body, realised he worst about what toxicology might find and also potential issues of neglect as well as media interest and then conspired to dispose of the body, she now walks around with no where to grieve for the loss. Every day she has to keep up this charade. She is a fucking liar.

No more excuses for the woman. They've bitten off more than they can chew and they will get bitten in the arse for it. I'm hoping Pat Brown will be their undoing as she has the profile, connections and resources to impact upon their story.

I didn't intend to imply that people with Asperger's don't show emotions, simply that incongruity can be observed and is one of the signs that a qualified observer would look for. That means nothing on its own, but can be part of the tapestry of signs that could contribute to a diagnosis. Incongruity, as you say, can also be a sign of lying, though in traditional Chinese medicine, the diagnostic model includes looking for incongruity of expression between words and body language and words and the emotion, which might be appropriate to the situation being described.

I don't really know anything about the application of traditional chinese medicine to ASD or lying however I would recommend Max Atkinson if you're interested in the analysis of body movement and gesture. He applies the psychology to people in the news and media in his blog and gives good examples. http://maxatkinson.blogspot.com/

The second person top of his game is Paul Ekman http://www.paulekman.com/

Iris wrote:Loopdeloop is right. I work with autistic children and children with Aspergers and yes, they can and do show emotion. In fact that is one of the aspects we have to study in our research.

FWIW I don't believe that Kate has Aspergers; NPD perhaps.

I agree with you fully and work in a similar field (most recently on the forensic side but am in transition elsewhere)

I guess there's a difference between a 'forum myth' (ie. where someone on a forum has claimed to 'know' something (I'm remembering a poster on the Mirror Forum who reckoned they had a contact with someone in the Leicester police force etc. and lots of stuff about a cold metal sheet and a freezer) and a 'myth', which may even have found its way into the tabloids... like Kate 'gently removing the bead from Madeleine's hair', or how this was the McCanns' 'first holiday abroad with their children' etc..... in other words, lousy journalism.... It may be that the 6 dead bodies falls into the latter category. However, if SH made this claim and some kind of link can be found (and I don't doubt the possibility that she did say this) then this turns the 6 dead bodies story into an actual lie (like the one told about the 'deal' Kate was offered by the Portuguese police). There's no way a normal GP practice would certify 6 deaths in a matter of weeks. 15 per year would be average and most of those in hospital anyway....so the hospital docs would certify, not the GP. If SH turns out to be the source for this tale, she's either lying or she's been lied to. It's a nightmare trying to trawl through old footage of interviews though, and I don't envy Iris if that's what she's attempting to do. I can really imagine SH saying this, though.

I don't think Payne and Gerry had anything to gain from suing the Gaspars, even if they were innocent. For a start it's just their word against the Gaspars. It would be impossible to prove either way. BUT mud sticks and even bringing it out into the open would mean many people would choose to believe it. At the moment it's not widely known amongst people who don't particularly follow the case, but bring a law suit and the world would know. Too risky. People love to say 'no smoke without fire' especially when it comes to the popular hysteria about paedophilia. Gerry and Payne are very shrewd to simply ignore it.

Hi everyone I just retrieved my log in details to post on this thread. I have some experience of the drug in question and tbh as soon as I saw it the last thing I thought about was that Maddie may have ingested it more that if Kate was on it then she herself would be capable of almost anything. My brother developed a psychotic illness after smoking one joint of skunk. Despite endless attempts by therapists and hospitals to help him without drugs eventually he was prescribed this. After less than 4 weeks on it he was suicidal and hearing voices and threw away all his cds and his bicycle etc as he said his possessions were talking to him and giving him instructions. Before this drug he was at worst depressed. Perhaps Kate was in a similar state. My brother is now thankfully back to 'normal' on other meds but he says that drug nearly killed him and it is well documented that it can trigger erratic behaviour.

Loveday wrote:I don't think Payne and Gerry had anything to gain from suing the Gaspars, even if they were innocent. For a start it's just their word against the Gaspars. It would be impossible to prove either way. BUT mud sticks and even bringing it out into the open would mean many people would choose to believe it. At the moment it's not widely known amongst people who don't particularly follow the case, but bring a law suit and the world would know. Too risky. People love to say 'no smoke without fire' especially when it comes to the popular hysteria about paedophilia. Gerry and Payne are very shrewd to simply ignore it.

Depends what side of the fence you sit.

If someone was saying it about my hubby (or me if l were a man) l'd be doing everything in my power to stop the slurs and rumours. It can be possible to prove, if the other tapas children were spoken to or examined, not nice l know but that's the severity of the accusation and innuendo IMO. If nothing comes of that well it would be more reassuring for Madeleines sake but until then you have a man who made suspicious gestures about the very child who later disappeared allegedly abducted by paedophiles. And don't forget, the very person who was the last independant person to see her before she disappeared.

It's very clear but to me, the whole innuendo needs stopping.

I wonder too, what would have happened had the same gestures been alleged about Robert Murat? You think the McCanns would bury their head in the sand with that too?

I still can't decide what I think about all this. Part of me thinks he was making some kind of juvenile joke involving sexualising the act of breast-feeding maybe and this was taken more seriously than intended by Mrs G? But perhaps there is a much more sinister meaning behind the gesture, but if so, I can't imagine why DP would advertise his deviant fantasies to a whole group of people?

In my opinion there is no reasonable excuse for what David Payne said to Gerry McCann about his 2 year old daughter. It is paedophillic and if he had said it to me regarding one of my children I would have blown up at him friend or not.

I still can't decide what I think about all this. Part of me thinks he was making some kind of juvenile joke involving sexualising the act of breast-feeding maybe and this was taken more seriously than intended by Mrs G? But perhaps there is a much more sinister meaning behind the gesture, but if so, I can't imagine why DP would advertise his deviant fantasies to a whole group of people?

I have just reminded myself of the Gasper statement. Wintabells imo in no way is the smutty conversation about breast-feeding. When a baby suckles it latches on and sucks. He, DP was pushing his finger in and out of his mouth which is an immitation of something else, and that something else is an act that is involved in paedophilia.Admin please remove if I have over stepped the mark.

Angelina wrote:Is it even definite he was talking about Madeleine? Was she actually mentioned by name. Isn't it only what Mrs Gaspar assumes?

ETA...I tend to agree with Loveday. Why bring a law suit and advertise the accusation to the whole world?

I think it's easy to forget that the only people aware of the accusation are those who read forums.

Good evening Angelina. No she doesn't say she is sure it was Madeleine but thought it was....Snipped from the statement..

“One night, when all the adults, that is, from those couples I have mentioned above, were all sitting around on a patio outside the house where we were all staying. We had been eating and drinking ‘Berbers’.I was sitting between Gerry and Dave and I think both were talking about Madeleine. I can’t remember the conversation in its entirety, but they seemed to be discussing a particular scenario. I remember Dave saying to Gerry something about ‘she’, meaning Madeleine, ‘would do this’.

“While he mentioned the word ‘this’, Dave was doing the action of sucking one of his fingers, pushing it in and out of his mouth, while with his other hand he was doing a circle around his nipple, with a circular movement around his clothes. This was done in a provocative way. There seemed to be an explicit insinuation about what he was saying and doing. I remember being shocked by that. I always felt it was something very weird and that it was not something anyone should say or do. I looked at Gerry, and also at Dave, to gauge their reactions.

Angelina wrote:Is it even definite he was talking about Madeleine? Was she actually mentioned by name. Isn't it only what Mrs Gaspar assumes?

ETA...I tend to agree with Loveday. Why bring a law suit and advertise the accusation to the whole world?

I think it's easy to forget that the only people aware of the accusation are those who read forums.

Good evening Angelina. No she doesn't say she is sure it was Madeleine but thought it was....Snipped from the statement..

“One night, when all the adults, that is, from those couples I have mentioned above, were all sitting around on a patio outside the house where we were all staying. We had been eating and drinking ‘Berbers’.I was sitting between Gerry and Dave and I think both were talking about Madeleine. I can’t remember the conversation in its entirety, but they seemed to be discussing a particular scenario. I remember Dave saying to Gerry something about ‘she’, meaning Madeleine, ‘would do this’.

“While he mentioned the word ‘this’, Dave was doing the action of sucking one of his fingers, pushing it in and out of his mouth, while with his other hand he was doing a circle around his nipple, with a circular movement around his clothes. This was done in a provocative way. There seemed to be an explicit insinuation about what he was saying and doing. I remember being shocked by that. I always felt it was something very weird and that it was not something anyone should say or do. I looked at Gerry, and also at Dave, to gauge their reactions.

Hi Bobsy,

This "thought" is where I have a problem with the whole thing. It's a horrible accusation to throw at someone and only thinking he might have meant Madeleine is nothing like hearing him mention the name. Maybe he did mean her but it's by no means certain.

It's really not a discussion which should have taken place in public, even if it was about an adult.

The other thing that bothers me is what did LP actually do about the statement by Mrs Gaspar. Was it investigated? If not why not? I'd hate to think nothing was done about it or that something was covered up.

Angelina wrote:Is it even definite he was talking about Madeleine? Was she actually mentioned by name. Isn't it only what Mrs Gaspar assumes?

ETA...I tend to agree with Loveday. Why bring a law suit and advertise the accusation to the whole world?

I think it's easy to forget that the only people aware of the accusation are those who read forums.

Good evening Angelina. No she doesn't say she is sure it was Madeleine but thought it was....Snipped from the statement..

“One night, when all the adults, that is, from those couples I have mentioned above, were all sitting around on a patio outside the house where we were all staying. We had been eating and drinking ‘Berbers’.I was sitting between Gerry and Dave and I think both were talking about Madeleine. I can’t remember the conversation in its entirety, but they seemed to be discussing a particular scenario. I remember Dave saying to Gerry something about ‘she’, meaning Madeleine, ‘would do this’.

“While he mentioned the word ‘this’, Dave was doing the action of sucking one of his fingers, pushing it in and out of his mouth, while with his other hand he was doing a circle around his nipple, with a circular movement around his clothes. This was done in a provocative way. There seemed to be an explicit insinuation about what he was saying and doing. I remember being shocked by that. I always felt it was something very weird and that it was not something anyone should say or do. I looked at Gerry, and also at Dave, to gauge their reactions.

Hi Bobsy,

This "thought" is where I have a problem with the whole thing. It's a horrible accusation to throw at someone and only thinking he might have meant Madeleine is nothing like hearing him mention the name. Maybe he did mean her but it's by no means certain.

It's really not a discussion which should have taken place in public, even if it was about an adult.

The other thing that bothers me is what did LP actually do about the statement by Mrs Gaspar. Was it investigated? If not why not? I'd hate to think nothing was done about it or that something was covered up.

I agree with all you say. It was at best lads talk, sorry any lads about. Certainly scummy and pervy but the lady "thought" they were speaking about Madeleine. Now what gave her that impression? Was the previous conversation about Madeleine. Not making excuses or trying to make it fit, just where did she come to the conclusion that it was about Madeleine.Incidently this happened at another meeting. The same gesture but this time she "thought" he was speaking about his own daughter.

Angelina wrote:Is it even definite he was talking about Madeleine? Was she actually mentioned by name. Isn't it only what Mrs Gaspar assumes?

ETA...I tend to agree with Loveday. Why bring a law suit and advertise the accusation to the whole world?

I think it's easy to forget that the only people aware of the accusation are those who read forums.

Good evening Angelina. No she doesn't say she is sure it was Madeleine but thought it was....Snipped from the statement..

“One night, when all the adults, that is, from those couples I have mentioned above, were all sitting around on a patio outside the house where we were all staying. We had been eating and drinking ‘Berbers’.I was sitting between Gerry and Dave and I think both were talking about Madeleine. I can’t remember the conversation in its entirety, but they seemed to be discussing a particular scenario. I remember Dave saying to Gerry something about ‘she’, meaning Madeleine, ‘would do this’.

“While he mentioned the word ‘this’, Dave was doing the action of sucking one of his fingers, pushing it in and out of his mouth, while with his other hand he was doing a circle around his nipple, with a circular movement around his clothes. This was done in a provocative way. There seemed to be an explicit insinuation about what he was saying and doing. I remember being shocked by that. I always felt it was something very weird and that it was not something anyone should say or do. I looked at Gerry, and also at Dave, to gauge their reactions.

Hi Bobsy,

This "thought" is where I have a problem with the whole thing. It's a horrible accusation to throw at someone and only thinking he might have meant Madeleine is nothing like hearing him mention the name. Maybe he did mean her but it's by no means certain.

It's really not a discussion which should have taken place in public, even if it was about an adult.

The other thing that bothers me is what did LP actually do about the statement by Mrs Gaspar. Was it investigated? If not why not? I'd hate to think nothing was done about it or that something was covered up.

I agree with all you say. It was at best lads talk, sorry any lads about. Certainly scummy and pervy but the lady "thought" they were speaking about Madeleine. Now what gave her that impression? Was the previous conversation about Madeleine. Not making excuses or trying to make it fit, just where did she come to the conclusion that it was about Madeleine.Incidently this happened at another meeting. The same gesture but this time she "thought" he was speaking about his own daughter.

This is the other thing...(from memory) ...she didn't do anything after the first occasion and her husband didn't even notice anything wrong at the time. Didn't she even say (I could be wrong here) that she made sure she was around when DP was bathing the children? If that is correct, why did she even let him near her children if she had such suspicions.

As I say, that is from memory and I could be proved totally wrong. I need to re-read the statement as it's some months since I read it.

Loveday wrote:I don't think Payne and Gerry had anything to gain from suing the Gaspars, even if they were innocent. For a start it's just their word against the Gaspars. It would be impossible to prove either way. BUT mud sticks and even bringing it out into the open would mean many people would choose to believe it. At the moment it's not widely known amongst people who don't particularly follow the case, but bring a law suit and the world would know. Too risky. People love to say 'no smoke without fire' especially when it comes to the popular hysteria about paedophilia. Gerry and Payne are very shrewd to simply ignore it.

Depends what side of the fence you sit.

If someone was saying it about my hubby (or me if l were a man) l'd be doing everything in my power to stop the slurs and rumours. It can be possible to prove, if the other tapas children were spoken to or examined, not nice l know but that's the severity of the accusation and innuendo IMO. If nothing comes of that well it would be more reassuring for Madeleines sake but until then you have a man who made suspicious gestures about the very child who later disappeared allegedly abducted by paedophiles. And don't forget, the very person who was the last independant person to see her before she disappeared.

It's very clear but to me, the whole innuendo needs stopping.

I wonder too, what would have happened had the same gestures been alleged about Robert Murat? You think the McCanns would bury their head in the sand with that too?

You can't start examining children for sexual abuse on the say so of a woman who thought she might have heard something one night on a holiday. And also even if they did say/do it, it doesn't therefore mean they actually abused Madeleine or any other child. In the same way that even if she did misinterpret it and they weren't talking about Madeleine it doesn't mean she or any other children weren't abused. The McCanns really have nothing to gain by publicising the Gaspar statements. It's their word against the Gaspars. No way to prove either way. And as such best to keep the P word out of the public consciousness.

I don't know if what Gaspar saw was a conversation about Madeleine or not. But I really don't see the McCann's silence on it as an indication of guilt. Could be either way. Nothing to do with which side of the fence I favour. And I certainly have no love for David Payne.

I agree with you Loveday but I do fail to understand why Leicester Police didn't ask any of the Tapas friends about it in their Rogatory statements. It would have made perfect sense to me to do so. They had the statement in May so had plenty of time to get the information together.

gillyspot wrote:I agree with you Loveday but I do fail to understand why Leicester Police didn't ask any of the Tapas friends about it in their Rogatory statements. It would have made perfect sense to me to do so. They had the statement in May so had plenty of time to get the information together.

Who knows? I honestly think they just didn't think it was sufficient evidence to pursue that avenue.

Loveday wrote:I don't think Payne and Gerry had anything to gain from suing the Gaspars, even if they were innocent. For a start it's just their word against the Gaspars. It would be impossible to prove either way. BUT mud sticks and even bringing it out into the open would mean many people would choose to believe it. At the moment it's not widely known amongst people who don't particularly follow the case, but bring a law suit and the world would know. Too risky. People love to say 'no smoke without fire' especially when it comes to the popular hysteria about paedophilia. Gerry and Payne are very shrewd to simply ignore it.

Katherine Gaspar, made a serious allegation against David Payne, whether he was talking about Madeleine or not, She also implicated Gerry McCann, because she suspected Payne was talking about Madeleine. Katherine Gaspar then took her story to the Euro Weekly News, which was printed and sold in Spain.

The Tapas group including Payne and the McCanns sued those newspaper groups for printing lies amongst the truth, yet the Payne and McCann stayed silent when this allegation, which was as serious as the lies the newspapers printed, was printed in Euro Weekly News. I don't know if Katherine Gaspar was paid for giving her story to the Euro Weekly News, but if she was paid, this is another reason why I am amazed Gerry McCann stayed silent, if the allegation wasn't true. The McCanns are very money oriented and he could have taken not only Katherine Gaspar to the cleaners, he could have also taken the owner/s of the Euro Weekly to the cleaners. After all the fund needed as much money as possible to pay for the (cough cough) searches for Madeleine.

I think with Ms Gaspar's statement several things have to be taken into consideration

1. She and her husband were close friends of the McCann's and/or Payne's (enough to go on holiday with them)2. She is a Doctor so would have a reputation to uphold 3. Her husband Arul also saw the motions that David Payne made although admittedly he wasn't aware it was about Madeleine (Mrs Gaspar was certain).4. She took her allegations to the police in Leicestershire within weeks of hearing about Madeleine's "abduction"5. She had nothing to gain - and friendships to lose

Loveday wrote:I don't think Payne and Gerry had anything to gain from suing the Gaspars, even if they were innocent. For a start it's just their word against the Gaspars. It would be impossible to prove either way. BUT mud sticks and even bringing it out into the open would mean many people would choose to believe it. At the moment it's not widely known amongst people who don't particularly follow the case, but bring a law suit and the world would know. Too risky. People love to say 'no smoke without fire' especially when it comes to the popular hysteria about paedophilia. Gerry and Payne are very shrewd to simply ignore it.

Katherine Gaspar, made a serious allegation against David Payne, whether he was talking about Madeleine or not, She also implicated Gerry McCann, because she suspected Payne was talking about Madeleine. Katherine Gaspar then took her story to the Euro Weekly News, which was printed and sold in Spain.

The Tapas group including Payne and the McCanns sued those newspaper groups for printing lies amongst the truth, yet the Payne and McCann stayed silent when this allegation, which was as serious as the lies the newspapers printed, was printed in Euro Weekly News. I don't know if Katherine Gaspar was paid for giving her story to the Euro Weekly News, but if she was paid, this is another reason why I am amazed Gerry McCann stayed silent, if the allegation wasn't true. The McCanns are very money oriented and he could have taken not only Katherine Gaspar to the cleaners, he could have also taken the owner/s of the Euro Weekly to the cleaners. After all the fund needed as much money as possible to pay for the (cough cough) searches for Madeleine.

It's not actually a serious allegation though. No matter how repulsive you or I find it, it isn't actually serious in the eyes of the law. Even if they were saying and gesticulating what she claims, it's not against any law.

Loveday wrote:I don't think Payne and Gerry had anything to gain from suing the Gaspars, even if they were innocent. For a start it's just their word against the Gaspars. It would be impossible to prove either way. BUT mud sticks and even bringing it out into the open would mean many people would choose to believe it. At the moment it's not widely known amongst people who don't particularly follow the case, but bring a law suit and the world would know. Too risky. People love to say 'no smoke without fire' especially when it comes to the popular hysteria about paedophilia. Gerry and Payne are very shrewd to simply ignore it.

Katherine Gaspar, made a serious allegation against David Payne, whether he was talking about Madeleine or not, She also implicated Gerry McCann, because she suspected Payne was talking about Madeleine. Katherine Gaspar then took her story to the Euro Weekly News, which was printed and sold in Spain.

The Tapas group including Payne and the McCanns sued those newspaper groups for printing lies amongst the truth, yet the Payne and McCann stayed silent when this allegation, which was as serious as the lies the newspapers printed, was printed in Euro Weekly News. I don't know if Katherine Gaspar was paid for giving her story to the Euro Weekly News, but if she was paid, this is another reason why I am amazed Gerry McCann stayed silent, if the allegation wasn't true. The McCanns are very money oriented and he could have taken not only Katherine Gaspar to the cleaners, he could have also taken the owner/s of the Euro Weekly to the cleaners. After all the fund needed as much money as possible to pay for the (cough cough) searches for Madeleine.

It's not actually a serious allegation though. No matter how repulsive you or I find it, it isn't actually serious in the eyes of the law. Even if they were saying and gesticulating what she claims, it's not against any law.

David Payne may not have broken any law, but the fact of the matter is, Leicestershire police took the statement from Katherine Gaspar. Although they didn't pass on the information to the Portuguese police until much later, they must have thought that the information she gave them was relevant to the case.

However the issue isn't whether Payne and McCann broke any laws, it is the fact that Katherine Gaspar made a libelous allegation against Payne and implicated McCann. In my opinion if this gesture was nothing but an innocent gesture between Payne and McCann, they would have taken out a libel suit against the newspaper that printed the story, even if they didn't take a libel suit out against Katherine Gaspar.

Loveday wrote:I don't think Payne and Gerry had anything to gain from suing the Gaspars, even if they were innocent. For a start it's just their word against the Gaspars. It would be impossible to prove either way. BUT mud sticks and even bringing it out into the open would mean many people would choose to believe it. At the moment it's not widely known amongst people who don't particularly follow the case, but bring a law suit and the world would know. Too risky. People love to say 'no smoke without fire' especially when it comes to the popular hysteria about paedophilia. Gerry and Payne are very shrewd to simply ignore it.

Katherine Gaspar, made a serious allegation against David Payne, whether he was talking about Madeleine or not, She also implicated Gerry McCann, because she suspected Payne was talking about Madeleine. Katherine Gaspar then took her story to the Euro Weekly News, which was printed and sold in Spain.

The Tapas group including Payne and the McCanns sued those newspaper groups for printing lies amongst the truth, yet the Payne and McCann stayed silent when this allegation, which was as serious as the lies the newspapers printed, was printed in Euro Weekly News. I don't know if Katherine Gaspar was paid for giving her story to the Euro Weekly News, but if she was paid, this is another reason why I am amazed Gerry McCann stayed silent, if the allegation wasn't true. The McCanns are very money oriented and he could have taken not only Katherine Gaspar to the cleaners, he could have also taken the owner/s of the Euro Weekly to the cleaners. After all the fund needed as much money as possible to pay for the (cough cough) searches for Madeleine.

It's not actually a serious allegation though. No matter how repulsive you or I find it, it isn't actually serious in the eyes of the law. Even if they were saying and gesticulating what she claims, it's not against any law.

David Payne may not have broken any law, but the fact of the matter is, Leicestershire police took the statement from Katherine Gaspar. Although they didn't pass on the information to the Portuguese police until much later, they must have thought that the information she gave them was relevant to the case.

However the issue isn't whether Payne and McCann broke any laws, it is the fact that Katherine Gaspar made a libelous allegation against Payne and implicated McCann. In my opinion if this gesture was nothing but an innocent gesture between Payne and McCann, they would have taken out a libel suit against the newspaper that printed the story, even if they didn't take a libel suit out against Katherine Gaspar.

Kathybelle, the EuroWeekly is not sold in Spain, it is a free weekly paper in english and read by expats and holiday makers as distribution points are all the supermarkets and hotels and tourist information offices. So read by many each and every week So not big pay outs out of court there

Loveday wrote:I don't think Payne and Gerry had anything to gain from suing the Gaspars, even if they were innocent. For a start it's just their word against the Gaspars. It would be impossible to prove either way. BUT mud sticks and even bringing it out into the open would mean many people would choose to believe it. At the moment it's not widely known amongst people who don't particularly follow the case, but bring a law suit and the world would know. Too risky. People love to say 'no smoke without fire' especially when it comes to the popular hysteria about paedophilia. Gerry and Payne are very shrewd to simply ignore it.

Katherine Gaspar, made a serious allegation against David Payne, whether he was talking about Madeleine or not, She also implicated Gerry McCann, because she suspected Payne was talking about Madeleine. Katherine Gaspar then took her story to the Euro Weekly News, which was printed and sold in Spain.

The Tapas group including Payne and the McCanns sued those newspaper groups for printing lies amongst the truth, yet the Payne and McCann stayed silent when this allegation, which was as serious as the lies the newspapers printed, was printed in Euro Weekly News. I don't know if Katherine Gaspar was paid for giving her story to the Euro Weekly News, but if she was paid, this is another reason why I am amazed Gerry McCann stayed silent, if the allegation wasn't true. The McCanns are very money oriented and he could have taken not only Katherine Gaspar to the cleaners, he could have also taken the owner/s of the Euro Weekly to the cleaners. After all the fund needed as much money as possible to pay for the (cough cough) searches for Madeleine.

It's not actually a serious allegation though. No matter how repulsive you or I find it, it isn't actually serious in the eyes of the law. Even if they were saying and gesticulating what she claims, it's not against any law.

David Payne may not have broken any law, but the fact of the matter is, Leicestershire police took the statement from Katherine Gaspar. Although they didn't pass on the information to the Portuguese police until much later, they must have thought that the information she gave them was relevant to the case.

However the issue isn't whether Payne and McCann broke any laws, it is the fact that Katherine Gaspar made a libelous allegation against Payne and implicated McCann. In my opinion if this gesture was nothing but an innocent gesture between Payne and McCann, they would have taken out a libel suit against the newspaper that printed the story, even if they didn't take a libel suit out against Katherine Gaspar.

Kathybelle, the EuroWeekly is not sold in Spain, it is a free weekly paper in english and read by expats and holiday makers as distribution points are all the supermarkets and hotels and tourist information offices. So read by many each and every week So not big pay outs out of court there

According to the link I have, regarding Katherine Gaspar taking her story to the Euro Weekly, the papers that printed the story were the Costa Blanca and Mallorca editions. The story may well have been in other editions of the paper in other European countries. As for me saying the paper was sold in Spain, I just presumed the newspaper was a newspaper that expat's bought. However whether the paper is free or is sold is not the issue, the bottom line is the story was printed in the Euro Weekly News, under the heading "Gaspars on David Payne Odd Behaviour."

This is what someone in the link wrote after reading the story. "Congratulations to the first British newspaper [even though it's a Spanish edition] for the editorial decision of mentioning the Gaspar's statements."